Koda wrote:

Hindsight is ALWAYS 20/20. But imagine thinking you WERE at the right house. Imagine the supposedly aggressive and wife-beating a**hole comes to the door. He walks out, and his dog runs at you barking loudly and you're scared. Maybe he didn't have a tazer. Maybe he was told to show up with his weapon drawn and when the dog ran at him, he got scared.

Was the cop right? No. But I can't entirely blame HIM for the situation either. He made a mistake, but so did dispatch, and I'm sorry... so did this owner.

That's all I'm saying.

The officer had a tazer, and pepper spray. He shouldn't have pulled a gun on anyone, and at the very least, he should have apologized for killing his dog.

I think the issue is that the office lacked compassion and still sees nothing wrong with what he did.

but that is IMO.

ETA: The ONLY issue I have here is that the officer refused to apologize, and that he refuses to acknowledge that he made a mistake. The gate shouldn't have been left open, the officer shouldn't have had his gun out when there was no obvious threat, and yes, it all around sucks. I don't think the officer should rot in hell, but I do think that he should had atleast shown some compassion that he killed this man's best friend.

iceblulady wrote:

It's such a shame that cops have to be so stupid when it comes to dogs. Like I said if a cop shoots my dog for no reason I would either be dead or in jail but that cop is going down.

I don't care who's fault it was, if you shoot my dog, who JOB it is to be there for me, then I'm coming after you. I would probably use the media, as he is, but I am still coming after you.

Yes, you may be able to "Get another dog" but you will never have THAT dog again. Kya is ALWAYS with me, and if some one shot her because she was curious as to see what the yelling was about...well, I can't even imagine how I would take it. I've already lost 2 dogs to stupidity, I would probably snap if it happened again.

yes, he was given the wrong address the 911 tape of the caller is heard giving it to him. can not find that article yet.
Cops do need to be trained to handle a situation where there is a dog involved. They can be train to taze them or pepper spray. Not sure if all cops get to carry tazers but they all have pepper spray. If there is a dog involved and the cop and everyone involved is out of danger they need to call AC. Let AC come out and secure the dog. Don't just shoot it and shrug your shoulders like eh. BTW did you all see the video the owner took when he ask the cop why did did you shoot my dog. The cop just shrugged it off.
And the well he should have closed his gate thing. You know the dog was in the backyard not even caring his owner was walking out to the truck. He did not come running till he heard his owner and cop yelling. And there is no law saying every time you come out of your yard you must shut your gate. There is a lot of what if's.
What it comes down to is the cop had no right to shoot the dog in mid sentence of the telling the owner to get the dog. From the time he told the owner to put his hands up to shooting the dog was 4 to 6 seconds. It was more like 4, I think some one did a thing on the timing and came back saying it was 4 seconds.
it's very sad and I hope the owner sues the hell out city for it. Already the cop is lying on the dash cam about what happen.

Ever try to taz or pepper spray a charging dog? I guarantee you that you will miss. Police get attacked daily all over the country by dogs of dealers, abusers, thugs and whatever bad guys. Though I was deeply saddened to read of Cisco's death the police officer had and was within his right to defend himself. Remember this, EVERY frickin day some where in this country a cop(s) gets mauled some way or another by the "family" pet. I've been bit by strange dogs twice and stalked by a pit once which was even scarier. I'll tell you now if I had a gun and the authority to pull the trigger that day I would have.

People need to realize that these things happen in a matter of seconds not minutes where you might have a chance to analyze the situations. Put me or 95% of you in the cops place and I promise you would have responded the same way.

About the only thing I can suggest is that the dog owner sue the piss out of the city, and I'm fully aware that no about of compensation will replace his dog.

Thank you, Len. That's what I'm trying to get at. You can analyze this situation all you want, but just like you said Deb, it was a matter of SECONDS. What if Cisco WAS mean? In a mere half a second, the dog could have lunged at his face and caused serious damage.

Look at the neighborhood. You think there are a lot of responsible citizens living there with perfectly well-trained and behaved dogs? Profiling or not, it's not like the dog was behind a fence or tied up. He was loose and ran at someone.

Did he deserve to die? NO. I wish the cop had better training. I wish he HAD taken the few seconds to stop and think or to put his gun away and give the owner a moment to call his dog off, especially when the owner was compliant from the start.

For the same reason that you claim it was only a matter of 4 seconds, I claim that is what makes the situation so hard. It happened SO FAST. I agree, with Len. I would NEVER shoot someone's pet if I could help it. But when you are scared and an animal runs at you in a neighborhood like that (where the streets are dirty, houses are run down, and you just got called on a domestic disturbance) I can't say that my instincts or reflexes wouldn't kick in and I'd do something deplorable.

Lastly, should the cop apologize-- ABSOLUTELY. However... do you work in law enforcement? Do you work in law at all? RULE #1 is NEVER ADMIT FAULT. He's trained NEVER to apologize and it's because of a**holes who are sue happy.

And should he sue the city? I don't know-- if you're all willing to have your tax dollars pay for whatever absurd amount of money he requests, then yes he should. There is definitely a way to handle this that involves apologize and the department either donating money to a shelter or at least OFFERING to pay for the adoption and vetting of a new dog. It won't change anything, but I do agree that the police could try a little harder without admitting fault. It's sad that we even have to admit that, but Americans are so sue-happy it's absurd.

Regardless the situation was handled incorrectly by the officer. There is no reason to exit the cruiser with gun out and prepared like that. The guy was caught off guard and he is within every right to have his dog off leash on his own property. Within every right. The guy had no time to call off his dog between being told to put his hands up, a gun shoved in his face, and the dog realizing something was going on outside.

It could have prevented, of course. Everything is preventable. But to push blame on him for him being "irresponsible" is silly. The officer shot to kill and this shoot first ask questions later thinking is completely wrong. You can tell that the cop doesn't give a damn in the video. I'm sorry, but just because they're dogs doesn't make them mean less and can be shot just because it's barking. It's wrong. 100% wrong.

No one is arguing that it's wrong. And I beg to differ. The cop is flustered and scared in that video. He's not irremorseful. He was doing what he was trained to do: not admit fault (which has so many things wrong with it).

I find it hard to blame someone who is just doing as they are told or trained. And you really can't say "there was no reason for him to exit the cruiser with the gun prepared." One-- he didn't. He pulled it as he was walking to the house (you can see in the video) probably as he heard someone opening the gate. And two-- you have NO IDEA what protocol is in that neighborhood. Some neighborhoods are worse than others and there are different "best practices".

I'm not saying the cop was right, but I refuse to point blame at a single man without more information (ie- the WHOLE story, not just one incredibly biased side). I think there's a LOT that went wrong here.

As for the off-leash thing... he's within his right to have his dog off leash on his property if he can keep that dog contained. If he can't prevent his dog from running up and "attacking" or appearing to attack someone, then one can argue his dog shouldn't be offleash. The MOMENT that dog steps off his property, someone is within THEIR rights to shoot. I didn't make the laws, but that's the way that it is. I wouldn't have left the gate open. Do I think the owner is irresponsible? No... but I AM saying you can't blame the cop 100%. There is a LOT that went wrong.

I agree with Kristina and Tori both. I know that they are trained to not admit fault, but he WAS at fault. There might have been other factors, but I see no where that shows that the owner was at fault. He was on HIS property, with HIS dog, and had done nothing wrong.

I do think that they should help him get a new dog, but he doesn't want that. He only wants them to show compassion.


Either way, people are going to disagree on this, no matter what logical, factual, emotional basis you are arguing it on. People who think this was not wrong should reevaluate the way they treat others. Compassion was and IS the key here.

Excessive force.

There is simply no excuse for that officer to even have his gun out before trying to talk to the 'suspect' whom didn't even match the description given. Just another idiot with a gun.

Totally agree with Tori that we can't paint all police officers as trigger happy by this one incident.
It's an incredibly difficult job, and one that most of us wouldn't want to do.
More police officers were killed last year than in a long time.
But.
This was a 50 lb. dog.
I was a mail man in college and I was attacked by dogs multiple times.
(I don't know why dogs hate uniforms, but they do.)
Only twice did I have to use Halt and spray the dog.
Most times using my bag as a shield worked to deter them.

In this case, the officer drew his weapon as he approached the house.
I am wondering if that is protocol?
The tape shows that later, when he gets the correct address, he approaches the other house with his gun holstered.
So one of these two approaches was incorrect.
I am wondering if it is protocol for an officer to give a citizen time to comply with his commands?
Because he fires almost simultaneously with the command.
I am wondering if protocol is to approach domestic dispute calls alone or to wait for backup?

All I know is that I would not want a jury to see this tape. I would hope that the officer would apologize to Michael; that the dept. would send out a directive to its officers on how to approach dogs, and that it would publicize how officers will respond in such a situation to the public.

No one is painting all police as trigger happy.

But the fact that it was the wrong house, wrong guy who wasn't even hispanic, the guy was completely innocent and the dog was given ZERO chance to be saved because his owner had a gun to his face and the shot was fired immediately after the officer yelled to get his dog. IMO it was completely carried out wrong. Fault on both the police department and the officer for shooting first before anything can even be thought out.

The way he sounded as he approached the guy was nasty and from the start was very hostile.

How would you feel if this was your dog? You walk out of your own home and can't get the door closed in time before a cop starts yelling at you to put your hands up? And your dogs runs outside and barks? Then the cop blows a hole in your dog? How would that feel?

When I read this all I could think of is what if this was my dog they just put a bullet in. This near same exact thing happened last month 10 minutes from where I live.

Some earlier comments did generalize all police officers.

The pont I was trying to make was that this was one officer who made a mistake.
And I think he did make a terrible mistake.

No I don't think the entire police force is a bunch of trigger-happy morons. I do feel that this particular officer is a trigger-happy moron who abused his authority and used excessive force.

I grew up in a very bad part of town with a lot of domestic disturbances (including my own house) and every time a cop would just calming knock on the door and ask to speak with whoever was involved. I have never seen a cop draw his gun for a domestic disturbance ever.

Under those circumstances if a cop shot my dog he'd be shooting me next cause I would lose it on him.

A dog is going to react to their owner being completely scared out of their minds (as anyone wold be with a gun to their face) so it's understandable that the animal would bark at the officer. It's unbelievable to me that there seems to be no official protocol on how to deal with scared pets other than shooting them.

It's a shame how uneducated the entire WORLD is when it comes to the canine behavior. People misread body language, signals and warnings and the dog always the one who pays the price. Absolutely disgusting.

arooroomom wrote:

How would you feel if this was your dog? You walk out of your own home and can't get the door closed in time before a cop starts yelling at you to put your hands up? And your dogs runs outside and barks? Then the cop blows a hole in your dog? How would that feel?

I'd be devastated, but you're attributing emotions and assumptions to the case that aren't verifiable at this point in time.

How do we know he didn't walk out and leave the door open because his trained cattle dog always stays in the yard?

And honestly? I don't know this for sure either, but it seems to me like the cop was afraid of dogs. Perhaps he wasn't supposed to pull his gun as early as he did. I think it's a case of a poorly trained officer. The tape sounded to me like he was in shock the whole thing happened. I think it's one of those "It happened so fast" and his reflexes weren't appropriate and THAT is the fault of the police department.

And I'm not talking about anyone specific here... but these situations just make me so mad. We use to media to publicize this stuff to get what one person considers "justice" and we use mass hysteria to do it. That cop will NEVER make that mistake again, but now his life is probably ruined as much as the dog owner is devastated and scarred. People make mistakes and unfortunately, sometimes those mistakes are deadly to animals and to people. But does that man deserve to have his mistake publicized and immortalized forever to the point of threats and harassment? That's not fair either.

I AGREE. The police department should have issued a public apology. It should state that the entire force is undergoing training on how to handle domestic disturbances and calls where dogs are present. The police department as a whole could have handled this better. But from that video- that cop sounded scared and shocked. He was frightened by the dude coming out of his house (judging by his voice). THAT is wrong and we should not be sending out policemen who are afraid of confrontation out to calls alone. End of story.

But I refuse to point the finger at ANYONE without the whole story and I don't like going off of these mass hysteria facebook groups and media hypes. It just plays into the misinformation and injustices that already exist in this country.

Just to throw it out there,

The reason that this is a one-sided story is because the APD is not willing to talk about it, except to say that he "chose" to use deathly force.

The reason this spiraled like this is because the officer(s) did not bother to show any concern for the fact that they did something wrong. Whether they are trained that way or not, they know they did.

Koda wrote:

That cop will NEVER make that mistake again, but now his life is probably ruined as much as the dog owner is devastated and scarred.

You don't know that. It is highly unlikely that it will happen again, but you can't say he wont ever do that again.

While I agree, his life should not be ruined, I am a STEADFAST believer in admitting when you did something wrong. That is what this continues to go back to. All he wanted as an apology.

I DON'T understand though, why you are ok with them not admitting fault....as per your "try a little harder without admitting fault"

this is so sad...even if there is footage of a dog attacking i think it would depend on the type of attack, i mean so many people have dogs who protect them too and i'm sure his dog sensed that he was in danger by this stranger. that's incredibly horrible and michael is right, there is no amount of money that could make up for the loss of the dog. why would the cop draw out his gun immediately anyway on a guy just standing in his driveway?? and why was this cop by himself?? especially with a domestic violence call wouldn't there be atleast 2 police men especially to avoid mistakes like this, who gets an address wrong!

this kind of brings up another questions, i recently seen an article on yahoo about people in northern chicago putting squirrel poision where dogs can get it (dog friendly neighborhoods, dog parks, etc.) and a few dogs died from eating it. if these people were caught could they be charged for essentially killing dogs, or if a neighbor did something like this and murdered your dog could they be charged??

Snow White wrote:

I do feel that this particular officer is a trigger-happy moron who abused his authority and used excessive force.

See.. THAT is what I find unfair too. He made an awful, terrible, irreversible mistake that he is going to live with for THE REST of his life. But who can say if he's a trigger happy moron? Isn't being publicly denounced and harassed enough?

Personally- I do think his gun should be taken away, and he should be forced to undergo more training before he's allowed back into the field. But I just can't in good conscience condemn the man or call him names. Not without actually being there and witnessing the PLETHORA of other things that could have affected this situation.

Tiff&Kya wrote:

Just to throw it out there,

The reason that this is a one-sided story is because the APD is not willing to talk about it, except to say that he "chose" to use deathly force.

The reason this spiraled like this is because the officer(s) did not bother to show any concern for the fact that they did something wrong. Whether they are trained that way or not, they know they did.

I find that stupid and wrong too. I'm not arguing that this has been handled well. But I also know that attorneys will almost ALWAYS advise you not to admit fault.

Tiff&Kya wrote:

Koda wrote:

That cop will NEVER make that mistake again, but now his life is probably ruined as much as the dog owner is devastated and scarred.

You don't know that. It is highly unlikely that it will happen again, but you can't say he wont ever do that again.

While I agree, his life should not be ruined, I am a STEADFAST believer in admitting when you did something wrong. That is what this continues to go back to. All he wanted as an apology.

I never argued that he shouldn't apologize. I said that he's more than likely being legally advised not to.

And that should have said "likely NEVER". That was a typo.

Tiff&Kya wrote:

Koda wrote:

That cop will NEVER make that mistake again, but now his life is probably ruined as much as the dog owner is devastated and scarred.

I DON'T understand though, why you are ok with them not admitting fault....as per your "try a little harder without admitting fault"

When did I say that? I said that the first rule of law in these situations is NOT to admit fault because of the legal repercussions of it. I'm also not okay with tax payers paying the man thousands of dollars in a settlement, which in many circumstances is what happens. Sometimes millions.

And when did I say "try a little harder without admitting fault"?

FWIW- My bottom line is that I have a problem with people and circumstances like this where everyone is so quick to judge another person. I am just as quick to see where the owner MIGHT have gone wrong as I am to see where the cop did... and people are just always on the side of the dog owners or the victim.

I never assume guilt. I do believe that people are innocent until proven guilty. I don't think from what I see that the cop handled the situation correctly, but I don't know that for sure and I'm not about to place blame on anyone. I don't give in to that mass hysteria and I refuse to let this forum be a place that does so without people at least CONSIDERING the other side.

I do 100% agree that the police department could and should be handling this differently. I think there is a line of human decency that I have yet to see them approach. But I also know what an attorney would tell you in this case and a lawyer protecting the force from a law suit would never publicly admit fault. They have apologized as much as they are allowed to do. It said so in that one article that the police issued a public statement expressing remorse over the situation (it gave a quote by the chief of police or whoever issued the statement).

Koda wrote:

It won't change anything, but I do agree that the police could try a little harder without admitting fault. It's sad that we even have to admit that, but Americans are so sue-happy it's absurd.

That was what I was referring to. It seems by your posts you are ok with them never taking responsibility for their actions, unless I completely misunderstood the posts.

Koda wrote:

FWIW- My bottom line is that I have a problem with people and circumstances like this where everyone is so quick to judge another person. I am just as quick to see where the owner MIGHT have gone wrong as I am to see where the cop did... and people are just always on the side of the dog owners or the victim.

I never assume guilt. I do believe that people are innocent until proven guilty. I don't think from what I see that the cop handled the situation correctly, but I don't know that for sure and I'm not about to place blame on anyone. I don't give in to that mass hysteria and I refuse to let this forum be a place that does so without people at least CONSIDERING the other side.

I do 100% agree that the police department could and should be handling this differently. I think there is a line of human decency that I have yet to see them approach. But I also know what an attorney would tell you in this case and a lawyer protecting the force from a law suit would never publicly admit fault. They have apologized as much as they are allowed to do. It said so in that one article that the police issued a public statement expressing remorse over the situation (it gave a quote by the chief of police or whoever issued the statement).

I completely understand that. It just seemed that you were defending the officers actions, and like you said, we DONT know the entire story. We don't know what the "attack" looked like, but by the audio alone, it seemed to happen too fast, and that the officer did not give him the chance to control his dog.

I agree with needing to look at both sides, but we only have one story to be looked at.

ETA: I guess it's the texan in me . He was in the driveway, that is still considered HIS property in texas. and in texas, even if the dog is "threatening" if it's on their property, you can't shoot it. I have been looking at more laws, to see if that holds true with an officer. I honestly don't know how it would relate to an officer, but I wouldn't think that they are above the law (no matter what people think)

Tiff&Kya wrote:

Koda wrote:

It won't change anything, but I do agree that the police could try a little harder without admitting fault. It's sad that we even have to admit that, but Americans are so sue-happy it's absurd.

That was what I was referring to. It seems by your posts you are ok with them never taking responsibility for their actions, unless I completely misunderstood the posts.

Ah. Right. My bad, I did say that Here's the problem. Say said officer, who has been advised not to, goes up to the man, apologizes. Says he completely misread the situation and he made an awful mistake. This event has gotten international attention. His actions, albeit noble and what I would have wanted to see happen from the beginning, could cause him to lose his job and force the police department to pay thousands if not millions of dollars in a law suit and settlement that is worth NO ONE's time or money.

Again... it's our sue-happy culture. If a woman can get a multi-million dollar settlement for spilling hot coffee from McDonald's ON HERSELF... how much money do you think that a man who's dog was wrongfully killed is going to get?

No... because of all that, I don't think the police have a choice even if they wanted to. And THAT is totally what is wrong with America, but no one out there can claim that the man only wants an apology. Maybe he gets it and decides that's not enough and now he has the police completely admitting to the mistake.... we all know it's happened before.

And no- I never said I was "okay" with the police not apologizing. I DID in fact say that THAT is what's wrong with this world... that they honestly CAN'T without everyone making this already awful situation worse. Hence why I hate these mass hysteria situations.

ETA: As the officer said in the video-- if that driveway is shared (and if it's an apartment it would be), then the driveway is NOT his personal property.

I don't, in ANY way, agree that he should sue the city. That is silly, IMO because I agree. It just wastes time, and no amount of money is going to bring the dog back. And I agree with most of what you said, I just feel that this is another reason that officers are not trusted any longer.

I don't know the entire story, and I don't know every law in texas, but I do know that if some one shot Kya for being curious or protective, I would have a bullet in my chest right now because I would have done everything in my power to stop it from happening. I probably would have been shot BEFORE the dog, because I would have tried to grab the dog.